The Early Clinical Efficiency Of Posterior Cruciate-retaining Versus Posterior Cruciate-Stabilizing Prostheses In Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background: Total knee arthroplasty(TKA), can effectively rectify deformity, relieve pain, improve the knee joint function, fewer complications, and is an effective treatment for knee joint in late. Now after total knee replacement prostheses can be divided into Posterior Cruciate-Retaining(CR) and Posterior Cruciate-Stabilizing(PS).Two kinds of prostheses in the process of common development, retention, and does not retain the pros and cons of cruciate ligament remained after the debate, many long-term follow-up study results show that the CR and PS prostheses of the knee joint in the long term average degree of buckling, patient satisfaction, there is no obvious difference in survival rate from10to15years and major clinical manifestations. For early clinical results, now some researchers conducted many pertinent randomized controlled trials, but there is no consistent conclusion. This study based on two kinds of prosthesis of total knee arthroplasty patients short-term follow-up, in order to evaluate the short-term clinical effect.Objective:To compare the clinical efficiency of these two kinds of prosthesesMethod:Choose in February2013-December2013in our department (Shandong provincial hospital joint surgery) in patients undergoing unilateral TKA42cases, a total of42knees, aged45-83(62±5.3).CR type24patients with prosthetic group (group A), A total of24knee, female18cases,6cases of male, average age (61±4.9), and his left knee in11cases,13cases of right knee; PS type of18patients with prosthetic group (group B), a total of18knees,13cases of female, male in5cases, average age (63±5.5) and10cases of left knee,8cases of right knee. Two groups of patients in the basic information such as gender and age difference has no statistical significance (P>0.05), comparable.2groups of patients with surgery are completed by the chief physician of our department. Group A used Link CR type prosthesis, and group B used Zimmer PS prosthesis. Evaluation: Using the HSS score of two groups of patients with knee joint function assessment at the time of the last follow-up.HSS score include:pain scores (30points), functional scores (22points) mobility scores (18points), muscular strength(10points), flexion deformity (10points), stability (10points) and the deduction.Result:All42patients treated by TKA with CR and PS total knee prostheses were followed up for3months to10months (averaged6.7months). The average HSS score of group A is91.2points postoperatively. The average HSS score of group B is91.1points postoperatively. The radiographic position of implants was good without evidence of wear, loosening, osteolysis and periprosthetic fractures.Conclusions:There was no significant difference between two kinds of prosthesis. They has achieved a good therapeutic effect and won the recognition of patients. Due to low current clinical research sample size, large sample and long-term follow-up is needed to high-quality randomized studies comparing the pros and cons of two kinds of operative methods.